Two men facing numerous animal cruelty charges connected to an alleged dog-­fighting ring had their charges stayed in Superior Court in Chatham Friday.

Those charges, the court ruled, weren’t dealt with in a reasonable period of time, violating the rights of John Robert and Michel Gagnon by “clearly plodding through the system.”

Outside court on Friday, defence lawyer Ken Marley said Justice Bruce Thomas came down with the proper ruling given the circumstances.

Noting he understood the emotions the case has generated, he said Friday’s decision also ensures victims are protected.

“This isn’t about getting two guys off of a bunch of charges,” Marley said. “It’s about protecting everybody’s interest in the criminal justice system.

“In this case, there are no human victims. But imagine if you are a victim of a sexual assault, or a victim of a home invasion, or a victim of a robbery, and you had to wait five years for the guy who harmed you to be tried.”

During an in-depth ruling, Thomas said the court had to conduct a “contextual analysis” based on the timeline of events to determine if the delays exceeded the 30-month span deemed reasonable by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The 30-month calculation began the day the charges were laid — Oct. 10, 2015 — and ended on May 11, the last day legal arguments and scheduled evidence were to be presented.

Giving a rundown for each of the delays in the case, Thomas cited instances a delay would be considered reasonable but said they didn’t meet the legal test in this particular matter.

“This is a very close call,” the judge said.

After factoring in what he called an acceptable delay on the Crown’s part for several of the days, he calculated the time at 30 months, 28 days, prompting the withdrawal of the charges.

Thomas added the defence had offered trial dates for late last year that the court couldn’t accommodate. The judge also said the number of charges didn’t add to the complexity of the case.

Marley successfully brought this application under Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides a person the right to have a court matter dealt with within a reasonable period of time. The defence blamed the Crown for causing an “unreasonable delay” in the case.

Last month, Marley argued the decision by the Crown to add a Provincial Offences Act matter to the existing criminal charges was a factor in a delay. That provincial matter under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act involved an application by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to destroy 21 of the dogs seized.

Marley also pointed to a 2016 decision by the Crown to join another accused to the case — Robert Tomlin, who pleaded guilty last August to dog fighting-related charges — as another contributing factor to the delay.

Marley said his clients are understandably relieved but noted there is a 30-day period during which the Crown can appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Assistant Crown attorney James Boonstra declined comment after the decision was rendered.

Marley said if an appeal is heard, “it would take quite a while,” especially if the court of appeal reserves its decision. If this occurred, it could take a year, he said.

He added the community should take comfort in the workings of its justice system.

“I hope the members of the public will see it for what it is, which is a court system trying to discipline itself to make sure criminal cases are administered efficiently for everybody’s sake, not just the accused,” he said.